Categories:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas waged an unusual charm offensive in Washington this week after his White House meeting, attending a dinner with Jewish leaders Wednesday night, appearing on Charlie Rose, and addressing the Brookings Institution Thursday.

It was his first such public forum speaking event in Washington ever, Brookings' Vice President and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk noted when he introduced the Palestinian leader, who he said he had known since 1993.

An upbeat and refreshed-looking Abbas used the flurry of Washington public appearances to convey a larger message: that he is a willing and reasonable peace partner both for the White House and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and to put forward his proposals for moving the process forward.

“Now, we’d like to reach a solution on two initial issues – borders and security,” Abbas told the Brookings audience, giving his prepared remarks in Arabic, and answering the audience's questions in English.

Abbas said if Netanyahu agrees that proposals on borders and security that he and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert negotiated in 2007-2008 can serve as the basis of their talks, “then we could start direct negotiations to discuss the remaining issues,” Abbas said.

“This is what we discussed with Pres. Obama in detail and we also talked at length about what happened recently against the freedom flotilla, that set out to help the people of Gaza – to end the unjust blockade,” Abbas said.

Indyk pointed out that it's generally understood in the West that Abbas did not accept the proposal Olmert offered, based on 1967 borders and agreed land swaps, but Abbas said they were still negotiating when Olmert stepped down amid an Israeli corruption investigation.

“The man has said in the clearest of terms he accepts Prime Minister Netanyahu’s assessment of a demilitarized state,” former Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) told POLITICO Thursday. “He doesn’t want tanks, he doesn’t want missiles, he wants an internal security force.”

Abbas “accepts the Jewish people’s connection to the land of Israel and their connection to Jerusalem as its capital,” Wexler continued. “He readily accepts the 1967 borders with swaps that acknowledge realities on the ground, and he accepts a third party intermediary for security purposes on his in his state so long as it is not Israeli. It could be American, NATO, he has even said it could be composed of Jewish people.”

Wexler, in his new role as head of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, hosted the Wednesday dinner for Abbas at the Newseum, which was attended by former national security advisors Steve Hadley and Sandy Berger, former Bush National Security Council Middle East adviser Elliott Abrams, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's Howard Kohr and Lee Rosenberg, Alan Solow of the Conference of Presidents of Jewish Organizations, Americans for Peace Now's Deborah DeLee, former Bush Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's David Makovsky, the Anti Defamation League's Robert Sugarman, and U.S. News publisher Mort Zuckerman.

It was surreal, said the Center's Zvika Krieger of the Abbas dinner. Almost "every single major Jewish organization was here represented at the highest levels, sitting at the table with Abu Mazen."

The Washington Institute's David Makovsky, who attended both the Wednesday Abbas dinner and Thursday Brookings event, also said the Palestinian leader has been quite engaged and conciliatory on the visit.

Abbas, for instance, addressed the concern among some Jewish and Israeli leaders about the issue of incitement, saying he’s willing to work with the U.S. and Israel to try to end it.

“About the incitement, I am ready and we reiterated our position many times, there was a [trilateral] committee established during the era of Wye River ... to deal with the incitement,” Abbas said at the dinner. “Anytime, anytime they want to revive this committee we are ready to sit around the table and to talk about the incitement from both sides. We are ready, if the judge who is the Americans will say that this is incitement from the Palestinians, we are ready to eliminate any kind of Palestinian incitement of Israel.”

One Abbas dinner attendee said after deflecting the question a couple times, Abbas cited "Obama" as the reason he was not going into direct talks with the Israelis yet.

His "really interesting answer was [in response to a question], 'why won't you negotiate face to face,'" the attendee said on condition of anonymity. "He ducked twice. The third time he was pressed, he said Obama! He said once the Administration had said all [settlement] construction had to stop first, what else could he say."

The U.S. administration "came to us with a proposal: let us go to proximity talks,” Abbas told the Jewish leaders and former officials. “They sent a letter to us. We will go through ...the proximity talks for a while. If we achieve any progress, we will go to the direct talks. That is exactly what we are doing."

Other Washington Middle East hands familiar with Abbas’ discussion with the White House said Abbas won some breathing space from the administration on going into direct talks – a couple months.

"The administration has recognized that while direct negotiations remain the goal and the whole purpose of proximity talks, there is more political and diplomatic groundwork to be laid, as the Palestinians have been saying, and that this could take a couple of months," the American Task Force for Palestine's Hussein Ibish said.

“Abbas gave the president a clear understanding of where he is, and now [Obama] has to get that from Bibi,” Wexler said. “And if and when he does, it will give Abbas the ability, depending on the answer, to move forward.”

UPDATE: Aaron Miller writes in response that Abbas was "playing to his strengths and trying to cultivate the image of a wise and beneficent Palestinian leader reaching out, in contrast to the brashness and defensiveness [of] the Israeli Prime Minister."

But, Miller continued, "none of this will make a bit of difference. What counts is Abbas's capacity to make decisions (and Bibi's of course)."

Reader Comments (37)

Pages

It is the Arabs who have long had a peace plan on the table, accepted by Arafat in 2002. And Hamas has said they would abide by any peace agreed to by the Palestinian people. The Israeli anti-peace brigade well-represented on this thread just wants to go on stealing Palestinian land.

I am curious as to why each time you have written about the meeting of Abbas and Jewish leaders you have declined to report that Jeremy Ben Ami of JStreet was also a participant (as has been reported elsewhere). I also wonder if Mr. Abbas met with any Palestinian groups as I have not heard anything to suggest he has.

The far-right land grabbing fascists just love to denigrate peace-seeking people. Their only rational is their hatred toward the "dirty arabs", advocating for their deportation like true neo-nazis, and to derail anything that could lead to a peace agreement (shooting Yitzhak Rabin, funding the Hamas as a counter-point to the secular PLO, supporting extremist settlers, etc). They are a disgrace to mankind and are creating antisemitism around the world, they are the worse enemy of any democratic Israel.

Olmert offered to divide Jerusalem. Netanyahu has always opposed that. Abbas is holding out for Obama pressure on Netanyahu. Abbas looks comfortable because he has not been pressured to make any concessions --- and he would not be able to deliver on any concessions even if he signed to them. The 80% of Palestinians who oppose the two-state solution and want all of Israel would simply replace Abbas. Netanyahu cannot offer to divide Jerusalem when 80% of Israelis oppose that. Israeli law requires a referendum.

Smart Aleck, your polls are wrong. However, you are right about one thing: a peace deal must be voted on by both Palestinians and Israelis. They must choose between peace and never-ending war. Clearly you favor the latter.

Saddam Obama promised this guy 400 million dollars. Did I miss his coronation? I assume this is to replace the thousands of missiles they have fired into Isreal. My grandchildren are happy to have him add this amount to their debt.

Abbas is a fruad and a puppet by the Israelies and American govt to make it appear that everyone is serious but in fact it is just a game to screw over the Palestinan people year after miserable year. Nothing has changed for the better for the last 60 years and nothing will unless the Palestinas have the Russians and Chinese on their side and use their military force in reaching a just and honest resolution for the enslaved Palestinians

Am I reading this right? Abbas said he supports the 1967 borders and accepts that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Does Abbas have a bulletproof vest? He will definitely need one when he returns home.

Posted By: Am I reading this right? Abbas said he supports the 1967 borders and accepts that Jerusalem is the c | June 11, 2010 at 01:40 AM

I studiedTurkey's rise, the Arabs embrace, and American policy. America is stuck in the dilemma of fully supporting Israel no matter what, while claiming to be peace negotiators. This is a success for failure. Either the U.S. has to say the peace process is a failure and we support Israel regardless, or we need to clearly illustrate and implement an agreement that has international legitimacy. Because we ain't fooling anybody. Because Turkey is not necessarily competing with the U.S., it is representing a broad opinion that expands past the Arab world, (Mubarak wants his son to be his successor.) Obama seems weak when he takes no stand. He seems in the midst of fending off American domestic opposition (while completely failing to explain how this policy is constant with U.S. interests) while not alienating himself from the entire international community. This is a loser. He needs to take a stand and stick with it. He is showing himself to be weak. If he doesn't take Israel's side it supposedly will hurt domestically (Politicians are suppose to feel Israel and its donors is a defining issue in an election.) But if he takes Israel's side America will lose more influence in the Middle East. Because America needs Turkey more than Israel. We need Turkey to get out of Iraq. We need Turkey in Afghanistan. And we need Turkey because it is a Muslim NATO member. And we need a more stable Middle East. Though policy says otherwise. The current policy is really a joke policy from a strategic influence. Both realist or idealist. What? An idealist would support the rights of the Palestinians for freedom from occupation. An idealist would realize Israel has the strongest military in the region. That it is the main obstacle to peace. It is the strong party and the Palestinians are weak dependent on aid from the U.S. and world. We don't have a populist resonating rallying call for continued occupations. It does not fit into an idealistic world. Apartheid is no selling point. And from a realist stand point, Israel while strong is doing no strategic favors to the U.S. with prolonged conflict. It has a small standing army, little resources, and hurts American interest with its surrounding neighbors. It hurts not helps American alliances with oil rich neighbors. And its actions are a major factor to instability in the region. There is absolutely no justification for the level of support America gives to Israel. It IS a strategic liability withing the framework Israel's current strategic interests.

Posted By: I studiedTurkey's rise, the Arabs embrace, and American policy. America is stuck in the dilemma of | June 11, 2010 at 02:05 AM

I studiedTurkey's rise, the Arabs embrace, and American policy. America is stuck in the dilemma of fully supporting Israel no matter what, while claiming to be peace negotiators. This is a success for failure. Either the U.S. has to say the peace process is a failure and we support Israel regardless, or we need to clearly illustrate and implement an agreement that has international legitimacy. Because we ain't fooling anybody. Because Turkey is not necessarily competing with the U.S., it is representing a broad opinion that expands past the Arab world, (Mubarak wants his son to be his successor.) Obama seems weak when he takes no stand. He seems in the midst of fending off American domestic opposition (while completely failing to explain how this policy is constant with U.S. interests) while not alienating himself from the entire international community. This is a loser. He needs to take a stand and stick with it. He is showing himself to be weak. If he doesn't take Israel's side it supposedly will hurt domestically (Politicians are suppose to feel Israel and its donors is a defining issue in an election.) But if he takes Israel's side America will lose more influence in the Middle East. Because America needs Turkey more than Israel. We need Turkey to get out of Iraq. We need Turkey in Afghanistan. And we need Turkey because it is a Muslim NATO member. And we need a more stable Middle East. Though policy says otherwise. The current policy is really a joke policy from a strategic influence. Both realist or idealist. What? An idealist would support the rights of the Palestinians for freedom from occupation. An idealist would realize Israel has the strongest military in the region. That it is the main obstacle to peace. It is the strong party and the Palestinians are weak dependent on aid from the U.S. and world. We don't have a populist resonating rallying call for continued occupations. It does not fit into an idealistic world. Apartheid is no selling point. And from a realist stand point, Israel while strong is doing no strategic favors to the U.S. with prolonged conflict. It has a small standing army, little resources, and hurts American interest with its surrounding neighbors. It hurts not helps American alliances with oil rich neighbors. And its actions are a major factor to instability in the region. There is absolutely no justification for the level of support America gives to Israel. It IS a strategic liability withing the framework Israel's current strategic interests.

Posted By: I studiedTurkey's rise, the Arabs embrace, and American policy. America is stuck in the dilemma of | June 11, 2010 at 02:06 AM

Don't hold your breath waiting for peace in the Middle East. Here is something the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, had to say about this : " I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace ? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural : we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them ? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel , it is true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them ? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that ? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple, we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out." As quoted in 'The Jewish Paradox: A personal memoir' (1978) Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox) page 99.

If I thought for one minute that the current Israeli government was interested in a settlement, I might go along with the frightened, angry posters here. But I don't. I see no evidence, none, that this govt wants anything other than permanent occupation of the Territories and eventually, removal of the remaining Arab populations. It is the goal of the settler enterprise, which now dominates Israeli politics.

Abbas lies like he breathes, absolutely nothing he says even vaguely resembles the truth. Of course, he is addressing an audience that desperately WANTS to believe his lies. But, most American Jewish leaders, while closely tied to the Democratic Party & thus, stuck with the anti-Israel Obama, are very much out of touch with the majority of American Jews. Obama has lost about half of his former support among American Jews. Here in Israel, Obama is an object of hatred & disgust, he is only slightly more popular than Ahmadinejad, if that tells you anything.
Abbas has no authority to sign any agreement even if he wanted to. Without the IDF to prop him up, Hamas would seize power within a few weeks. His Fatah Party is corrupt, inept, & has little popular support. Reliable polls show that a majority of Palestinian Arabs do not accept Israel's right to exist within any borders. Incitement is not being stopped, on the contrary, it has increased.
What Abbas says in English is meaningless - he says exactly the opposite in Arabic. Hamas & Fatah both try to prove their legitimacy by competing on taking extreme positions on Israel.
Anyone who believes this crap from Abbas is either naive, a fool, or has bad intentions towards Israel.

Here are a few links to see what real experts on the issue think.
RubinReports, http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/06/news-flash-obama-meets-with-mahmoud.html
American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/06/inaccurate_biased_reporting_on.html

And here's an article by Khaled Abu Toameh, probably the best journalist on Palestinian politics, himself a Palestinian, from the Jerusalem Post describing the current political scene due to the postponement of elections by the PA, the article titled, ''W. Bank Municipal Elections Delayed.''
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178148
Does this sound like the two-state solution is at all realistic? Only if you're totally delusional ......

Is Abbas' charm offensive as credible as Obama's toward Israel?
That AIPAC was not at the charm meeting says it all.
Obama has destroyed Israel's trust.
There can be no peace during an Obama administration.

A charm offensive orchestrated by J Street? No wonder AIPAC didn't attend.
J Street...a Jewish organization with Arab funding. Is terrorist money in Israel's best interest?
Remember! Abbas cannot offer Israel what he doesn't have: the ability to make peace. When it's too good to be true, it isn't.

Abbas is corrupt, and has little credibility with Palestinians. He is a U.S.-funded creature intended to offset the grassroots support of Hamas, who have much credibility. (They provide food, medical aid, and schools instead of lining their pockets.) But the point is that the vast majority of Palestinians would support a two-state solution based on the U.N.-backed Arab League peace plan, which would create an independent Palestinian state on 1967 borders with minor mutually- agreed adjustments. The capital would be East Jeruseleum. Everyone knows the framework of a viable peace plan. But Israel is avoiding serios talks, preferring to steal more land, supported by the powerful Israeli lobby here ,and the disgraceful slavish U.S. Congress. Only when Israel has its U.S. welfare threatened will it come to the table.

Clearly all the peace-haters posting from Israel come out in the middle of the (our) night like Terry, conveniently forgetting that it's the Arabs (including Abbas) who have a peace plan on the table. These Israel-Firsters no doubt have a lot invested in perpetual Jewish land theft on occupied Palestinian soil. And quoting polls is especially dumb since polls go relentlessly monotonously up and down: blah, blah, blah, or more appropriately baa, baa, baa. Certainly any peace agreement will have to contain sweeteners for each side: "a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down" and all that, just like Jimmy Carter's successful and lasting peace deal between Egypt and Israel.

I'm sure the relatives of Leon Klinghoffer, the American Jew in a wheelchair who was pushed overboard on the Achille Lauro in 1985 by this terrorist....don't find anything 'charming' about him. Once a terrorist...always a terrorist! I wonder how many wheel=chair-bound passengers Mr. Netanyahu has pushed overboard! Anyone???

Posted By: I'm sure the relatives of Leon Klinghoffer, the American Jew in a wheelchair who was pushed overboar | June 11, 2010 at 09:55 AM

To "I'm sure": you may be "sure" but you're wrong, you boob. That was a different Abbas, namely Abu Abbas. Don't forget that Israel was actually born out of terrorism. Notorious Jewish terror groups such as the Irgun and the Stern Gang attacked the British as well as the Palestinian Arabs who had lived there thousands of years.
In 1946 the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing 91. The Stern Gang assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte, the Swedish UN mediator, in 1948. The Irgun and the Stern Gang played major roles in the 1948 terrorist ethnic cleansing of Arab civilians, as is well-documented, village-by-village, in the book "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" by renowned Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. This included the massacre of the Arab village of Deir Yassin in which thirty babies were slaughtered while their mothers were raped and killed, along with many others. The massacre was proudly advertised by the Jewish leadership in order to sow terror and induce other Arabs to flee.
The leader of the Stern Gang was future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, and future Israeli prime Minister Menachem Begin commanded the Irgun. In 1953, Ariel Sharon led a commando unit which blew up a building in the Arab village of Kibya killing 69 Palestinians including women and children. Twenty years later, Ariel "The Butcher of Lebanon" Sharon, then Israeli Defense Minister, was held accountable for the cold-blooded 1982 massacre of more than a thousand defenseless Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon. For this Sharon was forbidden by the Israeli government from ever again becoming Defense Minister. Instead he became Israeli Prime Minister, being elected after he started the 2nd intifada (Palestinian uprising) by ostentatiously parading around the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. Palestinian President Arafat had begged then Prime Minister Barak not to allow this provocation by candidate Sharon, since Arafat wanted to prevent the predictable violent reaction, but Barak refused.

Abbas admits that the West Bank Palestinian National Authority has been cooperating with Israel and the United states for several years now with overall positive benefits. Crime rate is down, international aid is up. The most interesting thing he said at the Brookings Institute is that external forces - Hamas in Syria supported by Iran - are stopping the Palestinian reconciliation needed to take any credible steps towards a unified Palestinian state. Hamas rejected the Egyptian-mediated Reconciliation document. Meshaal in Damascus does not feel the suffering of the people in Gaza, Abbas said.

In a recent interview with Charlie Rose: (Reuters) - "Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has stated explicitly that the Palestinian Islamist group will end its armed struggle against Israel if the Jewish state withdraws from Palestinian land it occupied in the 1967 Middle East War."